Phonological priming reflects lexical competition

Abstract

Aphonological relationship between a prime and a target produces facilitation when one or two initial phonemes are shared (low-similarityfacilitation) but produces interference when more phonemes are shared (high-similarity interference; . Although low-similarity facilitation appears to be a strategic effect (Goldinger, Luce, Pisoni, & Marcario, 1992), this result cannot generalize to high-similarity interference because the two effects are dissociated . In the present study, strategic processing in high-similarityinterference was investigated. The phonological relatedness proportion (PRP) and the prime-target interstimulus interval (lSI) were varied in a shadowing experiment. Low-similarity facilitation was found only with a highPRPand long lSI, but high-similarityinterference was found regardless of PRP and lSI. These results suggest that strategies influence low-similarity facilitation, but high-similarityinterference reflects automatic processing.Several studies (e.g., Goldinger, Luce, Pisoni, & Marcario, 1992;Jakimik, Cole, & Rudnicky, 1985;Radeau, Morais, & Dewier, 1989; Siowiaczek & Hamburger, 1992) have examined the role ofphonology in auditory word recognition by using a priming paradigm (Meyer & Schvandeveldt, 1971) in which a target word is preceded by a prime that shares some of its initial phonemes. Two dissociable effects have been obtained in this area of research: low-similarity facilitation and high-similarity interference . Although low-similarity facilitation involves strategic processes (Goldinger et al., 1992), the influence of strategies in highsimilarity interference has not been investigated.Determining the role of strategic processes in phonological priming is critical for models of spoken word recognition that propose operations relying on the phonology and predict phonological priming under various circumstances. For instance, in cohort theory (Mars len-Wilson, 1987), word recognition begins by activating a cohort of possible lexical candidates whose initial phonemes match the incoming signal. As such, a phonologically related prime could preactivate a target and facilitate responses. Another theory, the neighborhood activation model (NAM; Luce, 1986), suggests that similar-sounding lexical entries compete during word recognition. That is, the probability ofrecognizing a word is a function of the number, word frequency, and phonetic similarity of the word's neighbors. Presenting a phonologically related prime effectively increases its frequency and, thus, increases the competition between it and the target. A connectionist model pro-

Lexical competition in phonological priming: Assessing the role of phonological match and mismatch lengths between primes and targets

“…When a high proportion of related pairs (75%) and a long (500-msec) ISI were used, the interference effect was negligible, thus indicating that strategic processes do not cause inhibitory priming effects but, rather, counteract them. Despite this observation, it was claimed that Hamburger and Slowiaczek's (1996) f indings of inhibition when primes and targets shared three phonemes did not reflect a "true" lexical competition effect. Rather, it would be the result of response biases developed by participants when they noticed the presence of related prime-target pairs.…”

“…Hence, according to Goldinger, inhibitory priming effects occur because participants "avoid anticipating more prime phonemes than targets truly contain" (p. 350). Although in a reanalysis of Hamburger and Slowiaczek's (1996) data, Hamburger and Slowiaczek (1999) also showed that biases were reduced but not eliminated by the use of a low proportion of related trial pairs, they maintained that the three-phoneme overlap inhibition reflects competition between the lexical representations of the primes and of the targets. This is because inhibition is stronger when strategic biases are weaker, thus making it unlikely that response biases cause inhibitory priming effects.…”

“…Investigating the role of strategic processes in initialoverlap phonologicalpriming, Hamburger and Slowiaczek (1996) reported a reliable inhibitory effect with a threephoneme overlap only when the strategic factors were discouraged by a low proportion of related pairs (21%) and a short (50-msec) interstimulus interval (ISI). When a high proportion of related pairs (75%) and a long (500-msec) ISI were used, the interference effect was negligible, thus indicating that strategic processes do not cause inhibitory priming effects but, rather, counteract them.…”

“…In each experiment, the primes and the targets were presented auditorily and the participants performed a shadowing task. The stimulus lists included a weak proportion of related pairs (25%) to minimize the influence of strategic factors that could counteract the expected inhibitory effects (Hamburger & Slowiaczek, 1996). Except in Experiment 4, a short (50-msec) ISI was used to prevent the residual activation of the prime from dissipating before target presentation.…”

Why not model spoken word recognition instead of phoneme monitoring?

“…A growing body of evidence has accumulated that suggests that the processing of spoken words is influenced by phonological overlap between those words and preceding words. Primes and targets that share initial phonemes slow response times to the target word (Goldinger 1999;Hamburger & Slowiaczek 1996;Monsell & Hirsh 1998;Radeau & Colin 1996;Slowiaczek & Hamburger 1992. ) These effects have been obtained with the shadowing and the lexical decision tasks suggesting that the effect is perceptual and not solely the result of production processes (though results with lexical decision are somewhat more variable; see Monsell & Hirsh 1998 for a discussion of confounding factors in lexical decision).…”